People often have the idea that intelligence requires secrecy and teams of analysts. What intelligence, at the base level is, is simply taking information (or data) and turning it into a analyzed package...or even more simply...thinking about and filtering that information into something that decisions can be made from. In other words, most intelligence processes can also be used in critical thinking!
More than ever, we need problem-solving skills to be able to adapt to our fast changing economies and societies. Researchers at the University of Luxembourg believe it is possible to teach these skills which are widely known as "intelligence."
Understanding how to teach 'intelligence'
One of the items we discussed as part of the SHTF Intelligence Course a couple of weeks ago was the ACH model (or methodology) of analysis.
ACH stands for "Analysis of Competing Hypotheses"; this model was developed by Dr. Richards Heur at the CIA.
ACH is an eight-step procedure grounded in basic insights from cognitive psychology, decision analysis, and the scientific method. It is a surprisingly effective, proven process that helps analysts avoid common analytic pitfalls. Because of its thoroughness, it is particularly appropriate for controversial issues when analysts want to leave an audit trail to show what they considered and how they arrived at their judgment
Chapter 8 - Psychology of Intelligence Analysis
- Hypothesis – The first step of the process is to identify all potential hypotheses, preferably using a group of analysts with different perspectives to brainstorm the possibilities. The process discourages the analyst from choosing one "likely" hypothesis and using evidence to prove its accuracy. Cognitive bias is minimized when all possible hypotheses are considered.
- Evidence – The analyst then lists evidence and arguments (including assumptions and logical deductions) for and against each hypothesis.
- Diagnostics – Using a matrix, the analyst applies evidence against each hypothesis in an attempt to disprove as many theories as possible. Some evidence will have greater "diagnosticity" than other evidence — that is, some will be more helpful in judging the relative likelihood of alternative hypotheses. This step is the most important, according to Heuer. Instead of looking at one hypothesis and all the evidence ("working down" the matrix), the analyst is encouraged to consider one piece of evidence at a time, and examine it against all possible hypotheses ("working across" the matrix).
- Refinement – The analyst reviews the findings, identifies any gaps, and collects any additional evidence needed to refute as many of the remaining hypotheses as possible.
- Inconsistency – The analyst then seeks to draw tentative conclusions about the relative likelihood of each hypothesis. Less consistency implies a lower likelihood. The least consistent hypotheses are eliminated. While the matrix generates a definitive mathematical total for each hypothesis, the analyst must use their judgment to make the final conclusion. The result of the ACH analysis itself must not overrule analysts' own judgments.
- Sensitivity – The analyst tests the conclusions using sensitivity analysis, which weighs how the conclusion would be affected if key evidence or arguments were wrong, misleading, or subject to different interpretations. The validity of key evidence and the consistency of important arguments are double-checked to assure the soundness of the conclusion's linchpins and drivers.
- Conclusions and evaluation – Finally, the analyst provides the decisionmaker with his or her conclusions, as well as a summary of alternatives that were considered and why they were rejected. The analyst also identifies milestones in the process that can serve as indicators in future analyses.
Did you notice there are 7 steps here, and 8 steps noted as part of the process? This is very similar to how the Intelligence Cycle model is often taught as a 4, 5, or even 6 step process! Even though these processes are structures, some of the terms and steps can blend into each other, or are not universally defined.
Sample ACH Table
Let us use a case in which there are two cases (scenarios, cases, hypothesis), and two pieces of evidence. In this example, we are going to use a measurement of (+) and (-) to indicate whether that item supports the hypothesis or contradicts it; we can use scales from 1 to 10, or any other method of relative measurement.
| Evidence | Hypothesis One | Hypothesis Two |
|---|---|---|
| Item One | + | + |
| Item Two | + | - |
We look at this table, and we "add" all the values in each column to determine how much weight we assign each possibility. In this case, we see that Hypothesis One has a value of "2+", and Hypothesis Two has a value of "0".
A Specific Example
In an earlier post today, Is Trump Serious About Draining The Swamp? Your Thoughts, I thre out some possible scenarios and some possible indicators.
I'll put together the table, and let you fill in the "meaurement of value" for each cell. I'm going to keep it simple, though, and only use a few scenarios...
| Evidence | Trump is serious, but in over his head | Trump isn't serious | Trump is a Deep State shill |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trump's history of conflicting statements. | |||
| Firings of leakers | |||
| Trump media manipulation | |||
| Trump has not moved against the "sanctuary cities" |
Such charts can be expanded depending on the numer of scenarios vs. evidence items. Anaylsts can create competing charts, or they can compromise on the value for each cell; in compromise cases, the arguments for each measurement should be included as part of the package.
Practicing ACH as a Critical Thinking tool
What is absolutely necessary is regular practice involving analyses of evidence using either hypothetical situations or examples drawn from actual situations. In short, evidential analysis is mastered best by performing analyses contrived to illustrate the wide variety of subtleties or complexities so often encountered in actual evidential analyses
It's up to you whther you blindly parrot what others say, or if you dig down as far as you can go...
References and Suggested Reading:
Critical Thinking Skills for Intelligence Analysis
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Extending Heuer’s Analysis of Competing Hypotheses Method to Support Complex Decision Analysis
Analysis of competing hypotheses(Wiki)
My Books
